The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-02-10
MAJOR WALDO.
His Argument Before Judiciary
Committee No. 1, in the
Senate.

railway bill:
SIN the remarks l shall make wish it
understood that l cast no reflection on the
rlght-thlnklng and acting man anywhere.
| have read the bill now before you, and
reached the following conclusions: 1t is a
measure that must encourage insubordina-
ton to authority. 1t is recognition to
lncompetency In every form on the part
of employees, for, after notice of discharge,
the availability of the best man is weak
ened How much worse then must it be in
the case of a natural or selfrendered in
capable one Railroads have varied class
of people working for them, and it is no
reflection to say that many are disqualified
by ignorance to understand the relations
of employee, or to appreciate the rights of
the employer. Among those employed,
Just as it is in all large bodies, may be
found the best and the worst elements of
the human family, though it gives me
Measure to state that the latter class are
but small minority, but to give that
minority that latitude, that right to re-
main employed, accorded by this bill, will
endanger the entire travelling public; in
fact, ieopardize the intricate management
of all rail carriers in all phases of their
petent train man, conductor, agent, engi-
neer or official of any grade, By one err
ror of his, resulting from ignorance, wan
toness or incapability, hundreds of lives
may be sacrificed, and thousands of dol
lars worth of property destroyed, yet the
ability of such men must be tested; but,
after such test, your bill says that they
must be paid for thirty days or its
equivalent, that they must be given
thirty days notice of discharge. Not only
this but you made that carrier response
BILE for the act of one whom you compel
them to retain in pay, if not service, for
the full period of thirty days, after this
probably wanton display of incompetency
and utter disregard of life. This may be
termed an extreme case, but it is not. Ask
anyone acquainted with the operation of
railways what are the causes that contri-
butte to the accidents and destruction of
property and life, and he will tell you that
in many cases they have been the want of
knowledge OF else of negligence
Several that have come under
my own eye had their origin,
one in sheer drunken wantonness,
others from inequalities of various
kinds, and others yet from unaccounted
causes. would not add aught to the bur-
den of the employe. I would give him every
aid that his conduct and ability entitled
him to; but | can not think that
you would enact law max
ing and placing incompetent railroad SER
vice at premium. Folly, even in legisla-
ton, has it's limit, and that limit will have
been reached when this bill becomes law.
The enactment of law of this kind, as
applying only to railroads, seems an I'M
just discrimination against that class of
corporations not justified by the charac
ter of their operations in the past or at
the present Assume that this bill COM
pretended all classes of employment-the
laborer upon the farm, at the manufac-
tory, or in any sphere, in fact, in which
help of any nature may be used-then you
bring the matter directly home to every
interest that law of the nature proposed
might govern. Do you think it would be
legitimate or just to compel the farmer,
who has employed man, or number of
men, TO help gather his crops, that would
probably take from ten to fifteen days,
to pay those men for thirty days
service after the necessity for that
service should cease? Would it be
equitable to cause a manufacturer, when
his business becomes dull, or the demand
for his products had ceased, to pay his
employees for thirty days after their SER
vices were valueless? If this bill becomes
a law, should it not be equally applicable
to all kinds of business, as between the
employer and employee? 1 ask that these
things be considered in the aggregate,
that you may more clearly arrive at what
= Ca, 10 ill Ice, ne Ind
certainly result in crowding the railroad
service with many inefficient employees,
that after one days test or experience of
their ability, might not only be found
useless, but harmful in the many ways
already related. Is there any equity,
then, in enforcing these corporations to
pay men, who, in the early days of their
employment, indicate their inability to
serve? There are many reasons
why man in railroad en-
ployment may be incompetent. He
may get DRINK, fail to attend to his bus
mess, and in divers ways fail in the per-
Torrance of his duties to the satisfaction
of those who have the management of the
property. He may disobey orders, or,
from the reduction in the amount of bus
mess, it may be necessary to reduce
fOrce-yet, withal the roads must be taxed
with this thirty days employment after
reasons for non employment have become
apparent. Now, of the thirty days notice
that the employe must give of his inten-
ton to strike.
You are lawyers and doubtless know
what would be the effect of such law, but
to me it appears, or at least the intent of
the bill seems, to be a legal recognition
of surikes-or, in palmer language, au-
thorizing 5000 employees in this state,
upon thirty days notice, to place an en-
barge upon commerce, to stop
the movement of the public,
to imperil lives and property-in
fact, in thirty days these employees, with
the legal recognition this bill would give
them, and judging by the past, might en-
gage in many other excuses while hunt
ing down railroads. The majority of this
committee and the majority of the legis-
lature and the majority of the people dep
recate and would crush anarchy, but this
measure proposes to make it legal-to
build it up, to establish it. For argument
sake we will suppose this bill is law
which, however, trust your good Judge
ment will forbid, permit me to ask what
responsibility would rest upon the EN-.
/ ploye, or could legally be rested upon
, him, for the result or effect of his thirty
davs' notice to strike? What does that